Archaeology and the world now

It is often said that globalisation is leading to the homogenisation and fragmentation of the ways in which people live their lives, make sense of the world and identify themselves (e.g. Barker Reference Barker2012: 161–68). In archaeology, homogenisation takes the form of the ever-growing influence over other parts of the world of theoretical and methodological packages that have originated in the USA and Europe (mostly so-called ‘Western Europe’). This in turn is accelerating the trend to fragmentation by generating an increasing number of mini-paradigms (cf. Hodder Reference Hodder2012b) and by widening the divide between the ‘theory-/methodology-producing block’ and the ‘theory-/methodology-consuming block’ (see below). The differences between these blocks, as I will show, correlate with different trajectories that the countries comprising those blocks went through in the course of their modernisation. They have resulted in differences in access to capital and sources of wealth on one hand, and in problems of stable self-identity or identities on the other, and culminated in distinct ways of doing archaeology and distinct purposes or objectives for archaeological practice, cross-cutting the divide between those groups producing and those consuming theory and methodology and further subdividing them into a number of paradigmatic fragments.

The intensification of globalisation has had both positive and negative consequences, and that positive-negative tension has further enhanced those effects (e.g. Giddens Reference Giddens1990). This feedback leads to the increasing concentration of material and cultural-symbolic resources in the hands of an ever-smaller percentage of the world's population and to the accumulation of suffering and discontent among an ever-increasing percentage (e.g. Bauman Reference Bauman1998: 77–102). That discontent, as commonly observed, constitutes a root cause of the rise of religious fundamentalism, extremist nationalism and various types of social discrimination (Bauman Reference Bauman1998: 77–102). In order to make full use of the fruits of globalisation and to come to terms with its negative consequences for the practice of archaeology, our strategic priority should be the promotion of inclusivity and dialogue at all levels and scales within and between archaeological communities, which are suffering from division and fragmentation. We also need to broaden the horizons of our archaeological imaginations to envisage a better future.

Saying that is easy, and the words inclusivity, dialogue and imaginations might all sound trivial. Their implementation, however, requires careful strategic consideration. We must begin first by tracing the different trajectories experienced by parts of the world and countries that modernised themselves or were modernised by outside forces. Those different trajectories initially constituted, and still reproduce, different social formations which continue to manifest the consequences of globalisation (e.g. Wallerstein Reference Wallerstein1974; Loomba Reference Loomba1998). Next, we need to examine how the parallel processes of homogenisation and fragmentation are enhancing or hindering inclusivity, dialogue and archaeological imaginations across the world. Drawing upon this, I will conclude by proposing three concrete strategies.

Globalisation

Let me begin by examining the consequences of globalisation. The term means different things to different people. Here I define it as the cluster of phenomena caused by the ever-expanding network through which people, things and information move at ever-increasing speed. This leads to the contraction of distances in time and space between causes and effects in human, material and information terms (see Harvey Reference Harvey1989: 284–307). A number of dichotomies result, such as:

• • domination : resistance;

• • destruction : creation and innovation;

• • suffering : benefit.

Varying balances between the elements of these pairings in different parts of the world correlate with different modes of living and doing archaeology. Such modes can be mapped in a four-quadrant diagram (Figure 1). The factors constituting the X and Y axes of the diagram have been chosen because: X) differential access to capital and sources of wealth constitutes the economic condition upon which archaeological discourse is reproduced; and Y) the underlying socio-cultural and political conditions create problems of self-identity or identities.

Figure 1.

Four-quadrant diagram mapping different modes of ‘living and doing archaeology’. X axis: access to capital and sources of wealth, + easy, – difficult; Y axis: self-identification, + easy, – difficult.

In both areas without access to capital and sources of wealth and areas suffering the effects of prolonged world economic downturn, minority groups (indigenous peoples, migrants, religious minorities, LGBT people, and so on) are stigmatised and subject to various (often totally baseless) accusations such as stealing jobs and the wealth of the nation; these people can become the subject of violent discrimination. Such a trend often coincides with the rise of ultra-nationalist and various fundamentalist sentiments. Such phenomena cannot, however, be solely attributed to access to capital and sources of wealth; identical trends can be observed in the countries which are neither economically underdeveloped nor suffering as much from the economic downturn. This suggests that the circumstances underlying such increasingly common phenomena are highly complicated. The weakened sense of security that destabilisation of self-identity causes is a significant contributing factor (e.g. Bauman Reference Bauman2000: esp. 104–109). Situating these phenomena in the four-quadrant horizon segmented by the two axes can help us to make better sense of their causes (cf. Trigger Reference Trigger1984). I fully understand and accept that gross simplification is involved in this exercise. I believe, however, that the gain exceeds the loss.

The first quadrant is occupied by countries where global capital and sources of wealth are accumulated; in these countries, people acquire their identity relatively easily because the nation-state has been built without colonisation. Rates of modernisation and nation-state building and different historical trajectories have differentially conditioned the way in which people identify themselves as ‘citizens’. Of course, one person may have multiple identities, which might be gender-, sexuality-, age-, occupation- or ethnicity-based. The concept of ‘identity’ includes all of these aspects and I am talking about the ease or difficulty of acquiring and securing them. In many European countries, where people can still imagine their societies to be driven by the spirit of the enlightenment and rationality (e.g. Habermas Reference Habermas1990), the reconstruction of large-scale events and processes in human history, such as the origin and development of farming, appear a strong motivation for doing archaeology as a means for furthering the broader enlightenment project; this is epitomised by national ‘schools’ in centres of ancient civilisation such as Athens, Rome and Cairo and by the numerous edited volumes concerning human origins, the origins of agriculture and the rise and demise of ancient states that continue to be published in those countries.

The second quadrant is occupied by countries such as African nations, where the acquisition of self-identity is relatively easy because they define themselves as ‘the colonised’ and through ancestral genealogies and tribal, ethnic, cultural or national affiliations. The situation is complicated by the fact that those factors have been and still are engineered and distorted by external stakeholders (e.g. Rodney Reference Rodney1972). Access to capital and sources of wealth remains difficult and, again, is engineered to remain so (Rodney Reference Rodney1972). Archaeological agendas in these areas are dominated by a discourse focused on ethno-nationalist inclinations, which support struggles against neo-colonialism and class and ethnic divisions. This is driven by a colonial past, forced modernisation, the struggle for independence and the on-going struggle to secure basic human rights (e.g. Shepherd Reference Shepherd2002).

The third quadrant is occupied by countries such as Latin American nations. Here, the ambivalence to former colonial powers formed by complex trajectories of national independence makes the acquisition of self-identity a complicated process. Complex relationships between majorities, such as the mestizo of Spanish-speaking countries, and indigenous peoples, add further nuances (see Gnecco & Ayala Reference Gnecco and Ayala2011). Access to capital and sources of wealth is improving, but remains difficult. The colonial past, the deep-rooted ties to former colonial powers, an ambivalence in self-identification and continuing economic difficulties make Marxist-derived theories a prominent part of the archaeological agenda (e.g. Patterson Reference Patterson1994). These countries are also characterised by civil struggle against corrupt governments, large international companies and the forces of globalisation.

The fourth quadrant is occupied by countries such as the USA and the UK, which have substantial accumulations of capital and sources of wealth, but where self-identity is more difficult to acquire. The development of post-industrial social formations, backed up by neo-liberal ideologies, means that the basis of individual identity is always shifting and fluid (Bauman Reference Bauman2000). That makes self-identification a subject of conscious, strategic pursuit. People also become aware that the acquisition of self-identity is a political act. In such circumstances, expanding neo-liberal lifeways and widening socio-economic divides result in a diversity of interpretative archaeological themes (see e.g. Gero & Conkey Reference Gero and Conkey1991; McGuire & Paynter Reference McGuire and Paynter1991) relating to what Giddens (Reference Giddens1990) has termed the life-political agenda.

Globalisation has hence led to the emergence of four paradigmatic and geographical blocks (quadrants 1, 2, 3 and 4) that are characterised by different ways of doing archaeology and by different purposes and objectives in doing archaeology. Hyper-capitalist economics exploit the differences between those blocks, and between the countries within those blocks, in terms of income levels, infrastructure, general levels of education and cultural traditions to maximise profit margins by continuously shifting the place of capital investment (e.g. Harvey Reference Harvey1989; Baumann Reference Bauman1998: 27–54). These trends accelerate the process of homogenisation but also lead to the manipulation, enhancement and appropriation of socio-cultural differences. Furthermore, pre-existing centre and periphery relations are reproduced and replicated in micro-form in individual regions, effectively perpetuating and enhancing the divide between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ (Wallerstein Reference Wallerstein1974; Harvey Reference Harvey1989). As archaeologists, we respond by drawing upon unique local conditions, but that inevitably leads to the fragmentation of global archaeological agendas.

Fragmentation

One of the ironic consequences of globalisation is the fragmentation of archaeological discourse, which has been accelerated by post-processual archaeologies (Mizoguchi Reference Mizoguchi2006: 121–33). Anglo-American post-processual archaeologies derive from the socio-cultural, economic and political reality experienced predominantly in quadrant-4 countries such as the USA and the UK (Figure 1). Thanks partly but significantly to the establishment of English as the international language, these post-processual archaeologies continue to expand their sphere of influence (marked by numerous publications from established publishing houses such as Cambridge University Press, Routledge, Left Coast, Springer and so on). The trend is accelerated by the spread of hyper-capitalist economics (e.g. Bauman Reference Bauman2000: ch. 2), neo-liberal ideologies and the specific habitus (Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1990: 66–79) that they generate. This is deepening the fragmentation of archaeological discourse in the form of the endless generation and forgetting of mini-paradigms deriving from various life-political agendas and worldviews with minimal differences between them. Those mostly middle-class archaeologists who live and work outside quadrant 4, and experience the same identity issues as those in quadrant 4, tend to embrace post-processual approaches. By contrast, the hostile reaction against post-processual archaeologies by most archaeologists outside quadrant 4 highlights their instinctive resentment to hyper-capitalist and neo-liberal economics, embodied by the increasingly shortened production and discard cycle of post-processual theory fragments, some of which are not arguing what can be said or accomplished in archaeology but what cannot or should not. Such a trend, at times, evokes nihilistic reactions and rhetoric exemplified by the phrase ‘the death of archaeological theory’ (cf. Bintliff & Pearce Reference Bintliff and Pearce2011). In quadrants 2 and 3, in particular, there are distinct agendas for archaeology that require purpose-orientated, coherent theoretical and methodological packages such as those derived from Marxism (e.g. Chapman Reference Chapman2003: 20–26). These are considered somewhat outdated by quadrant-4 archaeologists. In Japan and other countries, the expanding influence of post-processual archaeologies is equated with the march of globalisation. The fact that post-processual archaeologies emerged and are mainly practised in the wealthiest block of countries makes their spread, at times, seem an element of ‘neo-colonial’ expansion, generating a sense of scepticism and emotional resentment.

The development of cultural resource management (CRM) as a distinct arena of discussion within archaeology also generates negative feelings about theory, and resentment towards post-processual archaeologies in particular. The ongoing reduction of funding for CRM reinforces the perception characterised by the following dichotomous pairings:

• • practical archaeology : theoretical archaeology;

• • tough real world : comfortable academia;

• • fieldwork : deskwork;

• • low income : high income.

This leads to the endless generation of circumscribed discussions based upon personal, ‘tough’ field experiences (cf. Mizoguchi Reference Mizoguchi2000).

The development of social media also accelerates fragmentation. In designated digital spaces, if properly guarded and moderated, like-minded individuals can exchange opinions and discuss specific issues in an intimate manner without fear of academic intimidation and plagiarism. That very intimacy, however, makes interaction between such circumscribed arenas of discussion increasingly difficult; those who commit themselves to a particular arena of discussion come to identify themselves with others in that grouping in an increasingly specific, formalised manner. That makes it ever more difficult for them to readjust to different ways of communicating with outsiders and to different topics of discussion.

Harmful consequences

Among the consequences of the progress of globalisation and the fragmentation of archaeological discourse are some that are clearly negative and harmful. They discourage the nurturing of ‘archaeological imaginations’, the various modes of imagining and working towards better futures through thinking about the past and the present.

Globalisation, fragmentation and dis-/mis-communication force some of us to become nihilistic, others to become anti-theoretical, and many of us to just get on with what we are doing in the way we always have. Such attitudes, however, discourage us from nurturing and developing our imaginations in the pursuit of better futures through engaging with the past and the present, and with others. It is just such imaginings that we need today. How can we counter the destruction of the basic conditions and requirements for sustaining our lives and the natural environment? To devise effective counter-strategies, we must widen our horizons of imagination and our spheres of communication. We must expand the compass of what we can discuss, by making it easier for the different communities of archaeologists to discuss and address new themes and new issues.

A future of archaeology

How, then, can we expand our archaeological imaginations? How can we overcome the obstacles? The following are my proposals.

1. 1. Re-introduce the sense of historical process and causality

In shrinking distances of time and space, globalisation and fragmentation have driven us away from a mode of thinking that situates things and events within long-term historical processes. Being able to study long-term phenomena is a privilege of archaeology. One consequence of globalisation has been the depletion of our ability to project what we learn from the study of the long-term flow of time and sequence of events, and to imagine future events and their causes. Social media enable us to know what is happening in incredibly remote places instantly and in detail. By utilising the same means we can organise ourselves very quickly to influence high-powered decision makers or send aid to disaster areas. That is wonderful. Familiarity with that contemporary mode of experience, however, is leading to the loss of our ability to patiently plan and act for a long-term future, and instead directs our attention to phenomena that are characterised by their immediacy and intimacy. The recent interest in embodiment (e.g. Meskell & Joyce Reference Meskell and Joyce2003) and material agency (e.g. Olsen Reference Olsen2010) exemplifies the situation.

That is not to deny that enormous gains have been made through responding to changing realities by developing post-processual archaeologies that have generated specialised fields of discourse on embodiment, materiality and so on (cf. Hodder & Hutson Reference Hodder and Hutson2003). Those developments are natural and sincere reactions to the deepening structural trends of post-modernity in quadrant 4, the cradle of post-processual movements. What they have achieved, in terms not only of theory-building but also methodological sophistication, has made archaeology much more powerful as a framework through which we can make sense of the present by studying the past. We must freely and unashamedly incorporate the fruits of those developments into our study of long-term historical processes.

It is important in this context to mention the major survey of future challenges for archaeology and new disciplinary agendas that was conducted recently by members of learned communities in the USA and Europe (Kintigh et al. Reference Kintigh, Altschul, Beaudry, Drennan, Kinzig, Kohler, Limp, Maschner, Michener, Pauketat, Peregrine, Sabloff, Wilkinson, Wright and Zeder2014). The survey aimed to summarise the opinions of archaeologists from quadrants 1 and 4. The outcome, in my view, only partially reflects the trends in those blocks: prioritising big questions, with strong emphasis placed upon modelling for prediction and the investigation of causality. The interpretative archaeologies deriving from the life-political agenda that proliferate in quadrant 4 are not so well represented, nor are the interests in the roots of ethno-national groups that are significant in quadrant 1 (e.g. Cunliffe Reference Cunliffe2000). The agendas arising from the survey seem designed to counter the feeling of fragmentation, the loss of ontological security and the general sense of fear that they have generated (cf. Giddens Reference Giddens1984), most acutely felt in the quadrant-4 countries, by reinvigorating ‘big pictures’. I fear, however, that emphasising the importance of ‘prediction’ and relying upon the long-term modelling of socio-natural, cultural, economic and political correlates unwittingly promotes an excessively uniform evolutionary worldview.

The significance of the long-term that I am emphasising should be distinguished from that promoted in the survey (Kintigh et al. Reference Kintigh, Altschul, Beaudry, Drennan, Kinzig, Kohler, Limp, Maschner, Michener, Pauketat, Peregrine, Sabloff, Wilkinson, Wright and Zeder2014: 18–19). What we need now is the sense of ‘could have been otherwise-ness’ of the past, to enable ourselves to imagine that things can be different from what we are making ourselves feel to be inevitable in the future (see Note at the end of the article). In order to appreciate the sense of ‘could have been otherwise-ness’, we need to investigate the involvement of various historical contingencies, including seemingly insignificant changes that happened to the tiniest elements of everyday life, in the constitution of long-term historical processes. We can regain the sense of reality and relevance in studying long-term historical processes by examining correlations between change in the everyday and that in wider social formation.

1. 2. Setting up arenas of discourse for mutual comparison and mutual appreciation

A starting point here could be to consider seriously how various theoretical and methodological tools might be used in combination to obtain the best result in each context and for each objective (see Hodder Reference Hodder and Hodder2012a: esp. 9–11). What is important is to make the use of theoretical and methodological packages explicit through proper citations and descriptions, whereby those not directly involved in the study of a given theme can nonetheless connect with the underlying implications of the research. When using various theoretical and methodological packages in this way, their historical, epistemological and ontological genealogy must also be made explicit, and the reason for their use in juxtaposition to other packages clearly explained. By doing this, the tension between the packages is exposed and can be consciously used to enrich the narrative rather than producing an uncritical theoretical-methodological hybrid.

We also have to strategically set up arenas of discourse that will allow the outcomes of various archaeological practices deriving from different constitutive characteristics of the four quadrant blocks to be juxtaposed, compared and appreciated in terms of their expected differences and unexpected similarities. To achieve that, efforts must be made to make mutual appreciation ‘natural’. How can this be done? I would like to propose the following.

First, as already mentioned, we must accept the reality that the world is divided into: A) the theory- and methodology-producing block (roughly coinciding with quadrants 1 and 4); and B) the theory- and methodology-consuming block (roughly coinciding with quadrants 2 and 3); and that this division also roughly coincides with: X) the data-consuming block; and Y) the data-producing block (Figure 2). Criticisms such as ‘you are merely describing data’ are often thrown by archaeologists of the A-X area at archaeologists of the B-Y area. At the centre of the A-X area, let us admit, are the USA and the UK. These also occupy the central position in globalisation and enjoy the tremendous advantage of being English-speaking nations. The criticism levelled at B-Y archaeologists, however, is not only often mistaken, but also counterproductive and harmful; it not only perpetuates the division but also maintains the perception of the B-Y area as archaeologically ‘underdeveloped’ (cf. Rodney Reference Rodney1972) in the minds of A-X archaeologists. It is a mistake, because in the B-Y area, which very roughly coincides with quadrants 2 and 3, the revelation of archaeological ‘truths’ (which in many cases were distorted under colonial rule and have been distorted through the processes of de-colonisation and globalisation; e.g. Connah Reference Connah, Mitchell and Lane2013) is of vital importance. Accurately re-describing archaeological data and giving them their own narratives, even if at times theoretically naïve, is more important and urgent than systematically applying pre-existing sets of theories or methodologies invented and developed in quadrant 4.

Figure 2.

Division between: A) the theory- and methodology-producing block; and B) the theory- and methodology-consuming block, roughly coinciding with the division between: X) the data-consuming block; and Y) the data-producing block. Mapped on the four-quadrant diagram of different modes of ‘living and doing archaeology’ (see Figure 1).

In addition, the creative appropriation by B-Y archaeologists of theories originating in the A-X area is producing numerous exciting archaeological narratives (e.g. Mizoguchi Reference Mizoguchi2002, Reference Mizoguchi2006, Reference Mizoguchi2013; Gnecco & Ayala Reference Gnecco and Ayala2011), which themselves often demand the reformulation of theoretical and methodological packages developed in the A-X area.

Second, for those of us living and working outside quadrants 1 and 4, to make our narratives more accessible for mutual appreciation we need to systematise our ways of producing archaeological narratives to allow them to be more easily compared with Western narratives that are (perceived mainly by those who do archaeology in quadrants 1 and 4 to be) theoretically and methodologically informed. At the same time, those who practise their archaeologies in the A-X area must understand the context-derived logics behind apparently (Western theory- and methodology-) ‘uninformed’ narratives. They should be appreciated as indigenous, locally unique theories and methodologies.

Third, we must devise strategies for using digital communication more effectively and innovatively for the construction of appropriate arenas of discussion. Moreover, we should not be too bothered by the existence of ‘established’ media and the media hierarchy. High-quality e-books (e.g. Caraher et al. Reference Caraher, Kourelis and Reinhard2014) and the innovative use of weblogs, Facebook, Twitter and other social media have enough potential to drastically change the situation, although it has not yet been fully explored by B-Y area archaeologists. At the same time, we should cherish the presence of publishing houses and internationally established archaeological journals such as Antiquity that are mostly located in the A-X area and in quadrant-1 and -4 countries, and utilise them fully and wisely. We who conduct our daily archaeological practices in the B-Y area and in quadrant-2 and -3 countries should submit papers written in the expected manner: systematise our narrative production to make our papers more accessible to those not directly involved in the archaeologies of our own countries or regions, and explicitly indicate which specific theoretical and methodological packages are relevant (or irrelevant) to our ways of making sense of the past. Our voices would then spread effectively and efficiently to the world.

Fourth, we must come to terms with language barriers. Today, those whose archaeological narratives concern the past of a non-native country are increasingly obliged to be proficient (and increasingly fluent) in the language of that country. It will hopefully be the case that an increasing number of established international journals will start offering: a) cheap and efficient translation services for those hesitant to write their papers in English; and b) efficient grammar-checking and editing services for those who are reasonably confident writing in English. By increasing exposure, projects and traditions that are alive and active in the B-Y area will begin to attract theoretical and methodological interest, will motivate an increasing number of our A-X colleagues to read publications we have written in our own languages, and will, hopefully, gradually reduce the hegemonic dominance of the English language in archaeological discussion.

1. 3. Organise alliances, and share the sense of fun

In all, to achieve the above, we must organise diverse and ever-changing alliances. The use of the word ‘alliance’, rather than the word ‘community’, is deliberate. To form a community, we often force ourselves to share a set of expectations about each other's thoughts and acts. The structure of the globalised world, however, makes that virtually impossible to achieve. It generates too much stress and, even worse, generates a sense of cynicism; pretending to promote something impossible as possible makes people cynical altogether. Rather, we have to start by admitting our growing differences. We also have to learn how to strategically de-prioritise our own positions, and form an alliance around a shared issue. To solve a specific problem, stakeholders need to accept each other's differences, seek equilibrium among different demands for a solution, and continue communicating until a solution is reached. That requires diplomacy and patience, and inevitably leads to the dismantling of what one has believed to be one's birthright. We should accept those principles as ‘rules’ (not ‘norms’), to avoid deepening the fragmentation and dis-/mis-communication that could lead to the revival of essentialism and fundamentalism.

In order for us to sustain such alliances and facilitate our problem-solving, we also need a sense of fun. The process must be mediated by the sense of fun-sharing so as to avoid the cynicism that might be generated by the level of diplomacy and negotiation that are involved, and to nurture the sense of friendship, respect and mutual understanding.

Finally, the flexible and spontaneous formation of such alliances needs broad institutional support. A loose international association of archaeologists, such as the World Archaeological Congress, which is not based in any particular country, and whose statutes encourage diversity, dialogue and friendship (WAC 2014: see esp. Article 2), will amply fulfil such a role.